Members of minority groups have historically been both victims and perpetrators of terrorism. This article examines how international and national legal controls on terrorism have addressed or impacted upon members of minority groups. In particular, it identifies three key areas in which legal questions arise: (1) the extent to which terrorism laws protect minorities (which is principally a question of the definition of terrorism, particularly ‘motive’ elements); (2) how terrorism laws apply to—or exempt—members of minorities who perpetrate terrorism (which concerns both definition and exceptions to definitions); and (3) how counter-terrorism laws differentially or disproportionately impact on minorities (which concerns definition as well as over-policing).
This article examines the legal relationship between terrorism and other transnational crimes. It considers how terrorist groups instrumentally commit other transnational crimes in order to support their terrorist activities, as well as when terrorist acts can qualify as other transnational crimes. The overlap and differentiation between terrorism and transnational organised crime is explored by reference to the un Transnational Organised Crime Convention 2000 (untoc) and its three protocols on human trafficking, migrant smuggling, and firearms trafficking. In particular, the article examines the distinction between politically motivated terrorism and the financial or material benefit that is central to the definition under the untoc. Beyond the untoc, the article then investigates the relationship between terrorism and a cluster of more disparate transnational crimes, including drug trafficking, illicit trafficking in cultural property, illicit exploitation of natural resources and environmental crimes, and kidnapping for ransom. The article identifies gaps in existing legal regimes.
One aspect of the ‘Asian Century’ has been the growing interest from Asian states in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean that surrounds the continent. There has been a significant shift in the approach by a number of Asian states to the Antarctic Treaty and the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) that has been built upon and around it. While Asian states continue to be under-represented in the ATS (there are seven Asian state parties to the Antarctic Treaty), participation has grown, and more significantly the view that the ATS is an ‘exclusive club’ dominated by developed states has given way to a more pragmatic, more cooperative and less ideological approach to Antarctic affairs. Broadening ATS membership and increasing interest from existing Asian state parties to the ATS, most notably China, prompts questions as to whether there are distinctive Asian–Antarctic issues, and if so whether the Antarctic regime can evolve to address them. Specifically, are the governance and law-making processes of the ATS, which have not changed significantly for decades, up to the task of providing an effective international system of Antarctic management in this Asian Century?